A reader asks: "Can someone comment on the legality of using my brother's old Snow Leopard DVD to install OS X? My brother has Lion, so why can't he choose to give it to me? It doesn't violate Apple's 1 license per 1 computer policy."

The question seemed to indicate that the one person had moved from 10.6 to 10.7 installed on the machine. This providing the 10.6 install DVD for the second person.

An issue to be aware of here is that 10.7 is likely considered an upgrade not a fresh install. The machine is being upgraded from 10.6 to 10.7 and 10.7 was sold at a low cost based on the expectation that the machine was already running a legal 10.6 install. They may make an argument that both 10.6 and 10.7 install media belong to the one (now) 10.7 machine rather than the upgrade freeing 10.6 up for install on another machine.

I'm not deeply familair with Apple licensing policy though. That's just the issue that came to mind based on the age old Microsoft trick of "upgrade" installs requiring validation of the prior "full install" version it was meant to replace. It's a friggin pain too because now you have to keep the install media for the prior version encase you have to prove that you are upgrading during a re-install of the newer version.

The question seemed to indicate that the one person had moved from 10.6 to 10.7 installed on the machine. This providing the 10.6 install DVD for the second person.

I believe the issue is even more troublesome. There are two ways to obtain Snow Leopard. 1) buy a disc, 2) buy the bundle (iLife 09 and iWork 09 plus SL.) Option (1) is an UPGRADE. I'm not clear if option (2) is an upgrade or not. So, unless the user has a fully licensed Leopard disc (one for every SL instance) or possibly got a bundle, the first option is definitely not conforming to the license the disc was sold under.

Yeah but there is a problem with the upgrade take.
First for me personally if you can install it on a empty system it is not an upgrade. when you upgrade something you build on the previous generation.

And then there is the practical problems i have gotten mac's delivered without a os. I got them from the university that had some kind of bulk software deal.
Ok
so now i have used mac's whiteout an os where do i buy the full version of OSx to install on these machines.

To start, brazilian laws are very pro-consumer centric; we have a very decent consumer code-of-defense that is applied throught a broad range of aspects in our lives.

We have no Digital Millenium Crap, and reverse engineering is not only legal in most cases - like porting code to unsuported devices or platforms - as there are laws to ensure that data will not be impossible to be used once a manufacturer stops selling the hardware it runs on. For example, anyone could create a Super Nintendo clone if they can prove that there is no way to buy a new one or (this is important) use your already purchased game in newer platforms (if Nintendo wants to charge you to play Super Mario 3 in the Wii even if you already have the game, for instance).

Well, this opens the door to anyone breaking the OSX bootloader in order to run on other hardware, but what about EULA?

Well, there are already some cases in justice were it was determined that a contract can't tell the buyer HOW TO use the product, nor forbit a specific usage of it.
What happens is that AFTER - remember, one is innocent until proven that isn't, something american legislators like to forget - the user misuses it, he can:
a) loose all warranty, support and devolution if the product is bought.
b) if the product is a subscription or service, the product can be cancelled - for example, you use your antenna of paid-TV to get channels that you do not pay for - and you can pay some fine - this is why subscription is getting popular here, few sell satellite antennas, most are borrowed to the consumer.

Now for that last part and most important part:
Software in Brazil, is not considered to be a "service" like Apple alleges, but a simple product like a hammer, so you end up with option (a), the only thing you can do is to void the warranty and support for the users that run OSX on a PC.

Pretty nice and legal

PS: Do not think that all of this is because Brazil do not have laws or such, we do; it is just that as was in US when it was a young nation, the laws are made to protect individuals, not big corporation's profit.

Simple economics, you need import tariffs to dissuade importation that which they should be making in their own country.

It's the lack of import tariffs that is killing the US as it's killing the US consumer base by exporting labor over seas in the name of artificially low prices in the short term.

High import tariffs lead to more companies hiring more workers to make consumer products in state, thus having more people in said state with the money to buy said goods thus building your consumer base and raising your nation's overall standard of living.

Exporting your labor only kills off your consumer base because you can't have an entire economy based on the financial or service industries. To do so is to make your economy a house of cards, a nudge in any direction causes the whole thing to collapse in on itself.

Somethings will never be made in Brazil, leaving Brazilians with nothing to buy. You can have your controlled economy and your tariffs. I'd rather pay less for my stuff and if local companies want to win me they need to be competitive. Protectionism and tariffs don't work.

Ah yes, the "Free Market", which goes to wherever on earth it can find the cheapest possible slave labor so it can "compete" by charging the same or more for products of inferior quality while sacrificing the economy of the country said companies are based out of?

I'll take the actual competition of having someone decide it's more cost effective long term to build a factory in my country over importing cheap crap made in deplorable conditions.

"Free Trade" is a race to the bottom and creates nothing but fiefdom at the cost of your own economy and national security in the name of over priced plastic junk.

They worked wonderfully for present industrial powerhouses, places which for a long time aggresively promoted their own industries - and only afterwards, when they are established, they push (if they can, easy for some of the bigger bullies / with the new-found industrial might) "free market" on others, to thwart, exploit, subsume, absorb possible emerging competition.
You can't just rewrite history, to suit an ideology pushed on you by a small group of people who would profit from it (well, I said "can't" but ...rewriting history is often precisely how ideologies happen)
And do you live in a b&w world of zero tariffs vs. virtually-all-blocking ones? (oh well, I imagine it's comforting for the outlook of small minds)

Anyway, in such case (that of goods promoted as "premium"), it often seems like a desirable policy of local branches in "lesser" markets. For an example from my backyard: a short hop across one river, EU countries on both sides, results in significantly lower prices on Apple products ...but with costs & taxes at least comparable - if anything, noticeably higher on the cheaper side.

There are two kinds of lawyers: Those who explain the legal consequences of various actions and those who say "tell me what you have done or want to do and I'll make sure its OK legally". You can guess which kind is more successful.

There are two kinds of lawyers: Those who explain the legal consequences of various actions and those who say "tell me what you have done or want to do and I'll make sure its OK legally". You can guess which kind is more successful.

Successful in building their retirement fund or successful in keeping you out of trouble?

I love OS X, but when I put it on a laptop the previously ran XP, I really didn't like it at all, it didn't help that a few of the drivers were missing. I ended up going with Ubuntu.

Liking or not liking the big boys (Win / *nix / Mac) is a matter of understanding them more than anything else. I prefer OS X to Win 7 by a very big amount, but that doesn't mean Win 7 is crap, just means I prefer how OS X works. A mate of mine has a new iMac but runs Win 7 on it, he prefers that.

installing a legally purchased copy of Mac OS X on your Hackintosh does not require that you violate copyright

Copyright is a law that allows authors to restrict distribution (and in software, use) of a work. An author grants you a right by way of a license. Although EULAs haven't been in court as much as many people think, I believe (and I've studied this in detail) that a EULA is best characterized as a contract where one party grants a license in exchange for money and other aspects to an agreement.

The consequence of this is that if the contract is void, no license is granted. EULAs typically also provide that the license will not be granted, or will be revoked, in response to a breach. That, in turn, makes any duplication - including copying code to a hard drive or into memory as part of execution - to be an act of copyright infringement.

It may be impossible to enforce, but it's certainly not clear to me that installing OS X to a non-Apple branded machine would not give rise to copyright infringment (in addition to breach of contract and DMCA specific remedies.)

The real issues here (IMO) are found in competition law. Apple have so far avoided being subject to that, but success can give rise to a legal response.

In reference to your copying argument, I think there is reason to claim fair use. If I own a book, I am allowed under fair use to make a copy of it for personal use. Maybe I want to annotate the copy. Maybe I don't want to risk the original getting wet in the tub. For books, the original and the copies are considered a single entity. If you sell the book, you either need to destroy the copies or give them with the book. Going back to computers, it is perfectly legal to make backup copies of your installation media. Media don't last forever, and copies of the original makes sense. While I am sure Apple would argue against this reasoning, outside of computers this type of thing is ordinary. Why do you think they have photocopiers in most libraries?

if the contract is void, no license is granted...That, in turn, makes any duplication - including copying code to a hard drive or into memory as part of execution - to be an act of copyright infringement.

In reference to your copying argument, I think there is reason to claim fair use...

Regardless of the "gray areas" the bottom line is this: if you're not installing OS-X on a Macintosh computer than Apple isn't going to be happy about it, they're not going to support you and they'll do everything in their power to stop you. Period.

Regardless of the "gray areas" the bottom line is this: if you're not installing OS-X on a Macintosh computer than Apple isn't going to be happy about it, they're not going to support you and they'll do everything in their power to stop you. Period.

I agree with your first two points, but as a Hackintosh user for the last 18 months, I would describe Apple's prevention activities towards the community as downright lackluster. Indifferent, even. I upgraded to 10.7 through the app store with a paid download. Using available tutorials/tools, I was surprised how painless it was (I installed 10.6 with a legitimately purchased install DVD). 10.6.X and 10.7.X upgrades are not exactly foolproof, but when something does go wrong, fixes usually involve an extension rollback. Point being, it could be a lot more difficult than it is.

I'm not sure why Apple hasn't taken a more active role against using OS X on non-compliant hardware, but the fact is that it does not require activation or verification (at least not at this time). Of course, such measures certainly do not prevent Windows 7 from being pirated. Perhaps Apple figures that there will always be those individuals who will find a way but that they are an acceptably small minority of users. Running a Hackintosh isn't exactly rocket science, but it's not stupid simple either; maybe this is enough of a roadblock to most people.

I get the impression that Apple don't especially care unless you are producing hackintosh clones and selling them commercially...

They don't really go out of their way to make OSX not work on non apple hardware, they just don't include drivers for anything other than the hardware they provide, and they require an EFI firmware (which isnt an apple only thing, other manufacturers are just much slower to move forward).

I really don't think that Apple give a crap what hardware you, as an individual, run Mac OS X on.

The only scenario where they do care is if somebody tries to commercially resell computers running Mac OS X.

Apple puts restrictions on their license to say "only run this on genuine Apple hardware" because they don't want to open themselves to having to offer support to people attempting to run OS X on non-Apple hardware.

Yes, there are technical hurdles to installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. That's down to the fact that Apple doesn't need to support anything besides the hardware they have manufactured. That's not malice, just practical reality - they're not going to spend thousands of engineering hours to support hardware they've never shipped.

Apple has never bothered to put any kind of technological restrictions on the installation of Mac OS X. There has never been any copy protection or license codes. They are completely aware that Mac owners regularly and routinely "pirate" major updates of OS X. The only thing they have done to tackle this issue is to radically reduce the price of their OS upgrades.

History has clearly shown that Apple will do nothing at all to try to stop individuals from installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.

Well said. My take on it is similar: Apple doesn't necessarily like that you put OS X on your generic PC, but they're not going to waste time and money trying to stop you. It's been my experience that Hackintoshers generally tend to already own at least one Mac, and even if they don't, they might eventually get frustrated with the whole process and buy the real thing.

Apple has mostly been a hardware vendor, writing great software in order to sell their hardware for profit. They also make lots of money from iTunes, which just so happens to run on their "competitor's" OS, and probably makes them more money than iTunes users on their own OS.

It's the Psystars of the world they want to quash, as they cut into one of Apple's real money makers: Hardware sales. Why buy a $3000 Mac Pro when you can get more or less equivalent performance for $1000 and still run OS X? That scares them, and they take action at that point. Again though, they never went after the Psystar customers, just the company itself.

“It's the Psystars of the world they want to quash, as they cut into one of Apple's real money makers: Hardware sales.“

Correct, but just because you want something, it doesn‘t mean you have the grounds to do it. If you sell a mac clone without an OS, and in countries where the DMCA doesn‘t apply (somehow making a mac clone violates the DMCA, don‘t ask why i don‘t know), on what grounds can Apple get you? None.

Without Apple there would be no Mac OS. Apple sells Mac OS for less than cost. Apple is not in the business of software but hardware. Mac OS is a service. Apple used to sell it for $120 and now dropped to $30 and I won't be surprised if they make it free like iOS upgrades. Did you price the cost of a Windows license?

Without Apple there would be no Mac OS. Apple sells Mac OS for less than cost. Apple is not in the business of software but hardware. Mac OS is a service. Apple used to sell it for $120 and now dropped to $30 and I won't be surprised if they make it free like iOS upgrades. Did you price the cost of a Windows license?

As a life long Mac user I have to say, you're full of shit. Development costs aren't that high for the OS and the distribution medium is ridiculously cheap. Especially since they grok any and all useful software under a BSD like license I.E. free labor.

What costs far more is the hardware as the cost of retooling of factories and procurement of components has a very high initial cost over an order of 1 million DVDs at $0.001 per disc and that cost is a near constant over the lifetime of the product while the software, once written can be copied near infinitely for marginal cost.

I always wondered why nobody has started a Psystar-like business in Europe and Asia, where the DMCA doesn't apply. Sell the computer without an OS, and make it so that the the OS Xinstall disc thinks the computer is a mac (and that the computer has mac-compatible peripherals), so that no special tricks are need. Then, all the user has to do is pick up an OS X disc, and install it.

Part of the explanation could be that OSX has much smaller traction in most of the world than too many pundits and web-loud people, living in few atypical places, realize (just go through Statcounter region and country stats). Making it not only not-so-attractive (more just "weird"), even simply not very known (plus, in some places, there might be quite recent ~bad association - like with ending of: http://www.osnews.com/permalink?489120 )
OTOH, people who do prefer Apple in such places, seem to treat them as a status symbol much more than is usual (doesn't work with hackintoshes)

The EULA language for OS X clearly prohibits the installation on non-Apple branded hardware. In WIPO signatory countries (like the US and Europe), you must accept the EULA terms to obtain a license to use (copy to disk or memory) the software and a license for the patents embodied in the software (codecs, etc.). In other parts of the world, it may not be a copyright violation or a patent violation.

The DMCA would not apply to the Apple software as there are no access controls of any sort in place. There are technical issues to be overcome to use the software, to be certain, but there's no encryption or intentional impediment to prevent access or copying.

In WIPO signatory countries (like the US and Europe), you must accept the EULA terms to obtain a license to use (copy to disk or memory) the software and a license for the patents embodied in the software (codecs, etc.). In other parts of the world, it may not be a copyright violation or a patent violation.

And what you claim one supposedly "must" do is rubbish - certainly I don't have to care, in one place in the EU, about licensing terms which are contrary to the law. Or about software patents, which don't exist here.

Actually, I can for example install one license of software on as many machines as I like - as long as only one will be used, only one will run, at any given time.

The DMCA would not apply to the Apple software as there are no access controls of any sort in place. There are technical issues to be overcome to use the software, to be certain, but there's no encryption or intentional impediment to prevent access or copying.

For doing that kind of unsupported thing, I found it would be better to download a pirated DVD with the anti user crap removed. Even if it is legal to install it, it will be crippled. Professional pirates make sure to remove the barriers so it works fluently. It's dangerous because there are some bad pirated that add even worse stuff in there but if you take the DVD from a pirate with a good reputation, it would work better than the original DVD sold by Apple.

Don't do it, it is illegal. If you did it your computer would work better but that would not legal.

To use Mac OS X or any software, including open source, you implicitly agree to a contract with that software's author. That's the End User License Agreement, or EULA.

This is not correct for GPL-licensed software.

The author of GPL-licensed sofwtare has said, in effect, that they are granting everybody unconditional permission to use (as in to install, optionally to modify, and to run) their software.

There is no agreement required. Everybody has been granted these permissions whether they "agree" or not. There is no contract involved, as this is purely a one-sided grant of permission. It is not as if anyone is going to say ... oh no, I don't have that permission. No siree, not me!

GPL-licensed software authors also grant conditional permission to copy and redistribute their software, but that is another matter. This also doesn't require agreement, as these additional permissions are granted as long as the conditions are met. If the conditions are not met, there is no grant of permission.

"LICENSE: A right granted which gives one permission to do something which he could not legally do absent such permission; 'leave to do a thing which the LICENSOR [the party granting the license] could prevent.'"

A contract, on the other hand, is defined like this:

"a promise, or set of promises, for breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty. I Williston, Contracts Section 1. The essentials of a valid contract are 'parties competent to contract, a proper subject-matter, consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.' 286 N.W. 844, 846: 'a transaction involving two or more individuals whereby each becomes obligated to the other, with reciprocal rights to demand performance of what is promised by each respectively.' 282 P. 2d 1084, 1088. 'The total legal obligation which results from the parties' agreement as affected by law.' U.C.C. Section 1-201."

Um.. one does indeed have to agree to the GPL in the form of adhering to it's four granted freedoms do they not? If one modifies the code, compiles it distributes the binary and does not provide access to the modified source code they are breaking the agreement to adhere to the GPL. Specifically; infringing copyright by removing permissions which the license requires they pass down to the recipient of the derivitive work.

If what one wants a license inherently agreed to with no limitations then that would be a copy-center type license more like BSD, MIT or the DWTFPL ( http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ ).

Um.. one does indeed have to agree to the GPL in the form of adhering to it's four granted freedoms do they not? If one modifies the code, compiles it distributes the binary and does not provide access to the modified source code they are breaking the agreement to adhere to the GPL. Specifically; infringing copyright by removing permissions which the license requires they pass down to the recipient of the derivitive work.

Nope.

The GPL license grants everybody unconditional permission to obtain, install, optionally to modify, and to run the software which comes under that license.

The GPL license also grants conditional permission to copy and redistribute the software which comes under that license.

The conditional permissions are granted only if the conditions are met (which happens to be the very nature of a "condition", BTW). The unconditional permissions are granted regardless.

There is no agreement required from any recipient. Nothing to sign, no EULA agreement to agree to, nothing even to click on. All recipients get the unconditional permissions and, if they meet the conditions, they also get the conditional permissions, regardless if they "agree" or not.

Teacher: "Everyone has permission to go to the toilet if they want, but not to go to the playground unless they have handed up their assignment".

It doesn't matter if the students "agree", or not. Clear enough, wouldn't you say? Even ten-year-olds should be able to understand this.

If someone does modify the GPL-licensed code, compile it and then distribute the binary, and does not provide access to the modified source code, since they have not met the conditions of the GPL then they simply have no permission to do that. Copyright law insists that people who distribute copies of (or derivatives of) copyrighted works must first obtain permission from the original authors of the works.

It is all perfectly clear and straightforward. There is simply no "agreement" required. One doesn't need to have "agreed" to a law in order to be bound by it, nor does one need to "agree" to be given a permission that one wouldn't normally get. The granter of a permission gets total say over what conditions must be met before the permission is granted, the receiver of the permission does not get any opportunity to agree or disagree. Without permission, one doesn't have permission. Its a bleeding obvious statement on the face of it, in effect a non-sequitur.

The GPL is a license, a simple grant of permissions, some of which are granted conditionally. It is not a EULA, and it is not a contract.

So, by meeting the conditions of the permissive license one is in-fact agreeing to the terms of the license then. It grants anyone the basic copy rights plus the additional rights (hence, the permissive license) only so long as they agree with and remain within the terms of the license.

Make no mistake, I'm not criticizing or questioning the GPL. I'm questioning the idea that one does not have to agree to the license. Agreement being in the form of acting within the stipulated limitations of the license.

Teacher: "Everyone has permission to go to the toilet if they want, but not to go to the playground unless they have handed up their assignment".

It doesn't matter if the students "agree", or not. Clear enough, wouldn't you say? Even ten-year-olds should be able to understand this.

The students demonstrate agreement by not going to the playground. The student who disagrees loudly would be told they can't go to the washroom. The student who disagrees quietly would try to sneak off to the playground under the guise of "going to the washroom" or would abuse the "going to the washroom" by hanging out there instead of on the playground.

An implicit agreement is still agreement even if it does not come with an EULA (Y)es radio button.

By using GPL or any other copy-left/copy-right licensed software one is implicitly agreeing to adhere to the permissive rights granted by the license. Otherwise, there would be no legal grounds for going after those who infringe copyright by going beyond the rights granted. Given that the GPL has been upheld in court against those who go beyond the given rights; it seems very clear that it does contain an agreement between licensee and the license holder.

A license requiring absolutely no agreement either documented or implied would be the previously mentioned copy-center type licenses that say "do whatever you like; use, modify, re-sell, re-brand or print out and eat with jam on toast."

So, by meeting the conditions of the permissive license one is in-fact agreeing to the terms of the license then. It grants anyone the basic copy rights plus the additional rights (hence, the permissive license) only so long as they agree with and remain within the terms of the license.

Nope. The GPL grants anyone the basic copy rights unconditionally, plus the additional rights only so long as the recipient of the code remains within the terms of the license.

It says absolutely nothing about agreement. It makes not one whit of difference what the recipient thinks about the conditions. The recipient can agree, or disagree, or think the conditions are an outrageous restriction or a perfectly fair deal ... it matters not at all.

If the recipient acts within the conditions (regardless of the recipients opinion of said conditions), then the permissions which are dependent on those conditions are granted to that recipient of the code.

Pure and simple. No-one has to agree, or disagree, with anything. There is no negotiation involved, there is nothing to negotiate.

I think you seriously need to look up what is meant by "agreement" in this context.

Pure and simple. No-one has to agree, or disagree, with anything. There is no negotiation involved, there is nothing to negotiate.

I think the confusion betwen us is symantics.

If one is remaining within the limitations stipulated by a license; one is demonstrating implicit agreement to remain within the limitations of the lincense. Agreement does not have to be negociated nore does it apply only to one's opinion of the terms.

In terms of the GPL. The fact that it provides extremely broad limitations which are nearly impossible not to remain within does not change the fact that implicit agreement is demonstrated by remaining within the limitations.

In a scenario where Apple will sell MacOS without hardware Apple would probably charge x4-x6 the price.

Most threads I read about people hackintoshing is those that really want to run Logic, Quark or final cut but cant afford a Mac.
If they add the price of those software with a Mac pc it comes into a hefty amount. And many just cant afford it.
Those people are quite willing to buy Logic ect. on their own but just cant with the hardware tie in.

In a scenario where Apple will sell MacOS without hardware Apple would probably charge x4-x6 the price.

The problem i see is that community has failed to build on Darwin source code + provided drivers.The only thing people like on a Mac is the desktop environment. If Apple could release a Darwin CD with their open source parts and a textual installer allowing the hacker community to use it OSX piracy would diminish. If I like Darwin is for its drivers and open environmentand I hate Quartz or Aqua or whatever it is called. I like straight Xfree86+Blacbox or even KDE/Xfce/Lxde on Darwin.

this is what iatkos/ideneb/hackintosh should have been in the first place, not binary patchers but a healthy open source community with duet chameleon or whatever used to run darwin and xorg and drivers. I understand their motives but open source is better more legal and more rewarding. Macports/Fink could also help to bring the latest and greates. Gnustep/Etoile are there to help.

I have tried itunes on a friend's mac and I agree that the experience is good. But I find smplayer better and could run on Darwin/Xorg. Smultron seems ok but I find geany great and it could run on Darwin/Xorg.

Gnudarwin and Puredarwin were a step in the right direction but they lacked a solid kernel foundation. osx86 community could help and the final product would be much better than macosx. But they are short-sighted. They want a hackintosh though they could help a future fork of Darwin with a true microkernel, Jobs' biggest dream.

WTF, Gnustep now is superset of Foundation and Cocotron would be a great source of made for mac software. Open source is always better.

Mac Mini's are so cheap, it's not worth fiddling with a Hackintosh. I've played with Hackintoshes since the first developer release of MacOS X 10.4.1 on hardware that was the same as the developer MacPro less the DRM chip.

It's just not worth the problems, like the hassles when an update comes out that hoses the system.

If there were a system which was cheaper, and didn't make me spend more time fixing things that get broken by updates than using it, I'd probably build one.

Meanwhile, the Macbook I picked up on eBay for $350 works fine for all my Mac needs.